Similar boat here, and I literally just cashed mine out after seeing this headline. Could I have made more? Probably, but there's no universe in which my few hundred dollars is going to turn into a million. What's much more likely is that I would forget about it for another year.
Lawyer here, and generally no. At best, the judgment could be persuasive to other courts in the First Circuit--and of course that's what Nintendo wants, hence the effort to craft language that could be easily ported to other sympathetic courts--but the legal theory is absolutely not binding on other parties until/unless the finding/rationale is adopted by a higher court.
Way to communicate contempt for your customers. If you're in the business of selling decorative replicas of cartoon swords, you need to be in on the kayfabe. Nobody is expecting to take one of these to a real swordfight. What they are expecting, however, is to have a cool prop to show their friends, and it's not unreasonable to expect the cool prop to feel like it's not trying to fly across the yard if you swing it around.
If you don't want people to touch the merchandise, the second sign is all you need.
Really? I'd be very interested in seeing a peer reviewed article in Nature in which someone reputable claims to have disproven the existence of the soul (especially without making a bunch of other ontological assumptions first). Can you point me to one?
As far as I can tell, the existence of a soul, like the existence of God, is inherently a non-scientific proposition--i.e., it is not falsifiable. But correct me if I'm wrong.
Sorry, 0 for 2 (or 3--you're probably wrong about the author of Matthew too). Some folks are deeply religious and care a great deal about context and history, but something tells me you already know that.
The books are deeply flawed, but if you want to criticize them, you have to bother to read and understand them first. Making shit up because you have a chip on your shoulder doesn't advance your position. All it does is prove the assumption of religious people, wise and ignorant alike, that you will readily lie if it serves your aim to paint their faith in a negative light.
When you engage in bad faith, you shouldn't be alarmed when someone calls you on it, and it should come as no shock that people aren't going to want to spend time correcting your errors.
Common mistake: When you're ascribing a bad quality to them, "millenials" means everyone born after 1960. If you're ascribing a good quality to them, it only means people born between December 12, 1989, and December 14, 1989.
Absolutely. It doesn't matter what my house's value is because I can't afford to sell it. I couldn't afford to replace it, and my house is the only realistic way I'll be able to retire someday and actually have a roof over my head.
Commenting again because I don't want anyone looking at the modlog to draw an absolutely wrong conclusion (for apparently a second time): It looks like distinguishing between discussing the possibility that violence, vigilante and otherwise, might be the result of these kinds of decisions, and advocating the same--which neither I nor, best I can tell, anyone else here has done--is a level of nuance that may be too much to ask. So be it, but accusing me of advocating violence in a public forum is an accusation to which I'm afraid I must vehemently and publicly respond and deny.
"When people can no longer rely on the courts to adjudicate crime, they will adjudicate it themselves. The next agent who catches up with this nazi might decide it's not worth the trouble to bring him back alive." To be quite clear: I think this is a bad thing, because I'm an officer of the courts of this country, and vigilantism should be avoided at all costs just because guillotines don't have good judgment, if for no other reason. But it may be a result all the same, and hushing those who whisper of its spectre, even with the best of intentions, will not prevent it.
Remove this one as well, and let of it a record be. [And mods, if you don't want the modlog discussed, add that to the rules.]
How about telling the poor that if they work hard eventually they'll be millionaires? Or telling them that a lower capital gains tax will improve their spending power? What about telling them that cheap drugs are penalized 100:1 to more expensive drugs?
The law enriches the rich, and politics convinces people to vote against their own interests. Call it a tithe or a tax, and enforce it with the threat of state violence or social opprobrium, but the result is the same.
Jesus of Nazareth said you should take care of your neighbors, because the religious institutions and government won't, and those religious institutions and governments killed Him for it. That the American church is hard to distinguish from the First Century Jewish priesthood is no accident.
Xhieron @ xhieron @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 295Joined 2 yr. ago
Similar boat here, and I literally just cashed mine out after seeing this headline. Could I have made more? Probably, but there's no universe in which my few hundred dollars is going to turn into a million. What's much more likely is that I would forget about it for another year.